DesignVerdictBeta
← Back to search
Contested design 008487227-0001

Invalidity · first instance · 2023-04-14

000119513

Contested design: 008487227-0001

CDR

Outcome

Application rejected (holder wins)

The invalidity application is rejected, and the applicant must bear the holder's costs fixed at EUR 400.

Show verbatim operative text

1. The application for a declaration of invalidity of registered Community design No 0084872270001 is rejected. 2. The applicant bears the holder’s costs, fixed at EUR 400.

CostsApplicant ordered to pay costs of €400

Parties

Applicant · invalidity challenger

Mitavo GmbHvia PDF extraction

Germany (DE)

Hofrat-Röhrer-Straße 14, 86161 Augsburg, Germany

Represented by

Inde® Rechtsanwälte

Dr. Oliver S. Hartmann

Holder · RCD owner

Weiming Li

China (CN)

No. 7 Yanchong Group, Chongjian Village, Tuanshan Town, Shaodong County, Hunan, China

Represented by

Dimitris Morides

Prior art cited (4)

National designAnnex 1⚠ rejected as evidence

UK design registration extract for household goods and other table utensils

UK design registration No 6106279 · UKIPO database

Web disclosureAnnex 2

automatic cap lifter/bottle opener

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00BYG7VI8 · Amazon · disclosed 2013-03-21

National designAnnex 3⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design registration extract

Chinese design registration No CN303316166S · CNIPA database

National designAnnex 4⚠ rejected as evidence

Chinese design registration extract

Chinese design registration No CN305200493S · CNIPA database

Legal grounds invoked

Article 25(1)(b)Article 4(1)Article 5(1)(b)Article 6(1)(b)Article 7(1)Article 7(2)

Argument summary

  • The applicant sought invalidity for lack of novelty and individual character based on a UK design registration, an Amazon product listing, and two Chinese design registrations.
  • The holder filed no observations in reply to the invalidity application.
  • The Division accepted the Amazon listing as proof of prior disclosure, but disregarded the UK and Chinese registration extracts because the publication information was insufficient or untranslated.
  • Comparing the accepted prior design with the contested design, the Division found clear differences in features where design freedom was broad, so the contested design remained new and had individual character.

Deciding panel

  • MemberEnrico D’ERRICO
  • MemberElisabetta FERRARO
  • MemberIneta GALUBICKE

Decision files

LanguageTypeSource link
deDeutsch (de)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
esespañol (es)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
frfrançais (fr)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
ititaliano (it)machine translatedDownload original from EUIPO ↗
enEnglishoriginalDownload original from EUIPO ↗

Locarno classes

07.06

Similar decisions

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.

CaseDateOutcomeShared groundsLocarnoScore
000129182

vs Guangzhou L-TEK Enterprise Co.,Ltd

2025-09-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000120871

vs Chuang-Kang Machinery Technology Co., Ltd

2025-01-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000122014

vs EDIESI SL

2023-09-07Art 25(1)(b)077
000118726

vs DAKA RESEARCH INC.

2023-04-27Art 25(1)(b)077
000118241

vs Noi srl

2023-01-25Art 25(1)(b)077
000116574

vs Horizons Group (London) Limited

2022-11-16Art 25(1)(b)077
000118157

vs Qing Wang

2022-11-09Art 25(1)(b)077
000118042

vs Tempo International GmbH

2022-09-14Art 25(1)(b)077